Hankworks as anoperator of an ice-resurfacing machine.The machine needed gas.The manufacturer has placed the water tank and the gas tankrightbeside each other.In addition, the two tanks are similar in colour and shape.Hank made the mistake of filling the gasoline tank with water.Whilefilling the gas tank with water,somegasolinefumesescaped andreached a nearby heater, causing an explosion, which in turn caused injuries to Hank.Hanksuedthe manufacturerof the resurfacing machinefor negligence.

Explainwhat Hank will have to demonstrate to prove his negligence claim.Whatargumentscould the manufacturer make?You are the judge.Make a decision and explain how you reached your decision.

Wouldyour answer be different if you learned thatHank testified thathe was not confused by the two tanks being similar in shape and colour and being so close to each other?

Cases:

1. Lambert v.LastoplexChemicals, 1971

2.RivtowMarine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works, 1974

3.DaishwoaMarvbeniInternational Ltd. v Toshiba International Corporation, 2010